Just Posted: Canon EOS 6D In-depth Review

Just Posted: Our in-depth review of the Canon EOS 6D. Announced last autumn, the 20MP EOS 6D is Canon's newest full-frame camera, offering a cut-down feature set compared to its big brother the 5D Mark III, but at a more affordable price. The 6D has some unique tricks up its sleeve though, including built-in Wi-Fi and GPS, as well as a super-sensitive central AF point capable of focusing in extremely low light. Is the 6D the budget-friendly full-frame DSLR that Canon enthusiasts have been waiting for? Click the links below to read our 25-page review.

Comments

I have a Canon 7d and recently purchased the 6d mainly to shoot landscape. The AF everyone berated works fine not had any issues with it but then again Im not shooting birds in flight or racing cars I will still use the 7d in those situations. The picture quality (with a good lens) is all I will ever need BUT all sensors above 20MP are showing up weak lenses this is where Canon & Nikon need to work its not good enough anymore even with auto corrections in LR or PS. The colours are very natural in standard mode and I can definately see resolution improvement from the 7d as well as better low light performance. Overall given its price its a great camera.

DPI is strictly related to the size at which you're viewing an image. If you have an image file 3000 pixels by 2100 pixels, if you view it at 10 inches by 7 inches -- on a monitor or in a print -- you'll be viewing it at 300 dpi (300 times 10 = 3000, 300 times 7 = 2100). All modern cameras are able to shoot images at 300 dpi at specific enlargements. But, the greater the number of pixels, the larger the enlargement you can make at 300 dpi.

Interesting update - On this weeks Calumet News Canon are offering a FOC photo back pack 'worth £115' with each new 7D and 6D purchased. Now it makes sense that Calumet/ Canon need to boost sales of a 4 year old APS-C camera when most of its tech can now be purchased in MUCH cheaper EOS cameras. But the 6D ??? An almost brand new FF DSLR ? Sign of the times my friends - Canon cocked it up with the 6D and its poor AF system. Mark my words - many decent discounts will happen before the 6D is gone and the 6D MK2 is already in Canon Japan's HQ under lock & key. But don't expect it too soon. Somehow Canon have got to get shot of the 6D MK1's first !!

Well months on what are we to think about the 6D ? Fury and Frustration greeted the new Canon 6D camera as it was about to enter the market place in October 2012 including from me. Since then it appears to have gone on to become a steady seller and users (overall) seem to rate it highly. The more promising Nikon D600 (and Nikon D800) have both had huge problems with quality issues (oil on sensor/ duff AF) both of which the 6D seems to have avoided. So what are we to think? For ME: A good not great camera. Too expensive unless GPS / WiFi are really wanted. A poor AF system and the 6D deserves far far better. Too expensive compared to the better spec Nikon D600 which is coming down in price faster and appears to be a bigger hit despite its problems. A really good sensor which out performs the 5D3 but really poor (for the price) video. I'd give it a 6/10 having only played with one - not at all sure its worth over £1500 b/only. Given the cash I'd rather have a Fuji XE1....YOU?

DPR, hello, copy-and-paste artifacts again:"The 6D comfortably renders detail up to around 2600 lph (which is what you'd expect), but the JPEG gives up very soon after this point, whereas Raw processing and fine-radius sharpening allows you to realize convincing detail beyond 2800 lph Moiré and false color creep in beyond this point, but this is necessary to reach the 2800+ lph that the Nikon D600's 24MP sensor can produce."

:)And actually Moiré is there in raw not "beyond this point", but everywhere in the part of the chart shown.

hi everyone, i don't get it: why compare the 6d to 5dIII and not to 5dII

i'm a 60d user and have been waiting for my chance to get back to FF; if the D600 hadn't have the oil/dust problem, I would buy one - but it has.

so i'll buy a lightly used 5dII, which basically would bring me all the 6d quality, better construction, no gadget (gps/wifi), real video hability... of course it is a bit bigger/heavier, don't accept SD cards... but except that, why prefer a 6d to a near new 5dII? Can someone explain it to me please?

It's compared to the 5DIII because it offers many of the benefits that the 5DIII has over the 5DII. The ISO performance is well beyond the 5DII at a much cheaper price than the 5DIII, not to mention the low light focusing. Its actually quite a lot better suited for a lot of photographers than the 5DII, unless autofocus system / shutter speed / high FPS shooting is more important than anything else, like sports. And after handling both, it has equivalent build quality to the 5DII even with the plastic top. I don't think its time for the 5DII yet, still around $1400 used. Should go down a lot in the months to come, which would make it plenty viable.

An error in the review: "The camera's AF system is decidedly less sophisticated than the more expensive Canon DSLRS and is limited to 11 autofocus points, less than a third fewer than is found on its direct competitor, the Nikon D600."

It is not "less than a third FEWER" (which would be correct for 27+ focus points), it is either "less than a third" (or more precise, "just about one fourth as many"), or "more that three times fewer" (or better "almost four times fewer").Also, "entry level Rebel-like" comparison would be appropriate.

I am maybe one of the first 6D buyers . I wrote in the forum about 500 comments ago. I took the 6D in field trips in India and Korea and I have to say the camera is fantastic : lightweight : you can carry it for 4-5 hours without getting tiredErgonomic : perfect handling (at least for my hand size) . All the dials and buttons can be operated without leaving your sight from the viewfinder Autofocus : fantastic . Never lost a shot in any light conditionHighlights : very forgiving . Very smooth transition , few clippings Silent shot mode: very useful in several occasionHigh Iso : excellent . Canon Lens: the kit lens is a L series 24-105 f4. Great traveling companion : light and sharp, I agree with many , this lens has notable distortion at 24mm and vignetting at full but you can fix both in LR, so no worries

Even though I wish it had the joystick, two card slots, more crosshair AF points and 1/8000 i still bought it and I agree with Lucafeb 100%. I also bought the 2.8 40mm STM that makes it very, very portable.

528 comment... good or bad, this things becoming a highly controversial camera. Controversial subjects are always highly attractive. Maybe, Canon created the camera like this as another marketing spin... but one that is working for them. It'll nice to see the sales figures of the 6D vs. D600?

People get defensive when they have spent money on something and others get sensitive when they fear they made the wrong decision.

One thing is for sure, the 6D and D600 have major flaws yet are supposed to be revolutionising FF photography.

My opinion - if D600 had bigger autofocus zone and no oil on sensor issues I'd buy it. If the 6D was cheaper I'd buy that. As it is I'm going to wait because by the time I make up my mind the new models will be in the shops with, hopefully, all problems resolved.

most reviews do not tell you what shutter speed the samples were shot at.

not all ISOs are equal. download the raw files you will see 5D3 samples have faster shutter speed than 6D's

T4i have faster shutter speed than t3i... and so on ... for marketing reason.

if its not for the color and video i think nikon really is a better choice due much lower shadow noise. you can shoot at lower iso and brighen it up without worry too much with shadow noise... like on the canons.

Buy Nikon, spend 50% more time on post-processing to get colours that are at least barely acceptable? Sorry man, but colour is everything, and unless you shoot pure B&W - you won't convince me that Nikon is a better choice than Canon or even Sony (which also beats crap out of Nikon in terms of colour photography).

As an ex Canon user and now a Nikon user..I admit that in certain situation Canon skintone is better than Nikon.. But it's not always 100% better.. Only in certain situation..And saying '50% more time just to get color barely acceptable' and 'only if u shoot B/W'Such a fanboy statement..

I owned a D600 but packed it in because of sensor issues. Take quite a few indoor shots around the house and the 6D is wayyyy better at focusing in low light. The D600 is probably better for action shooting if the subject is within that little focus area. The 6D seems to work fantastically for most shooting situations and have taken some bif shots that turned out very well with their 100-400 lens. Certainly the 5D mkiii is better for that, but the 6D is pretty good.

Honest question. One reason for the lower score (over the D600) is the autofocus system is 'less robust'. Can you expand on that? Granted there are less points, and not as many cross type (by a long way!), but the Nikon review hints at poor low light accuracy and failure, whereas the same section of the Canon suggests (even on the non-cross types) that auto-focus is accurate even in low light. Reading what is written in the two comparable sections I would probably conclude that the Canon has the 'more robust' system. Obviously this is not the case? Which has the FUNCTIONALLY better AF system?

Also important to mention that the D600s AF points cover only a small fraction of the field (since Nikon used an APS-C AF sensor for a FF camera), making traction almost entirely useless, not to mention reduced control over focus selection.

Built in flash is OK - sometimes it can be a life saver but I agree remote flash is normally better. Here again the Nikon D600 has a better spec than the 6D. Faster sync speed (so what) but full access to the Nikon flash system which is pretty good without having to buy an add on module or a top of the range flash gun.

The built-in flash is absolute no way for me, I am always using external one. I do not use video, I do not need swivel screen, I hate sports, dogs and birds ))). I will probably miss 1/8000, but I can live without it and neither 6d or d600 has it. In overall, 6d is just a great pure camera without any flaws for me. It cost me 200 euros more, but I think I will spend the same amount of money for sending d600 forth and back for cleaning the sensor (I am not shooting too much, and probably will not pass 3000 mark after the warranty will end).

As for me, I chose 6d because d600 grip is absolutely horrible, IMO, and 5dm3 is to big for my hands, while I do not want to handle 36-40mb files from d800. I was changing the complete system (pentax + 5 lenses and flash, very slow AF) and was open-minded for everything. After 5 minute comparison in the shop I understood that this horrible grip does not worth additional features that I barely will use. I am used with mostly only central AF point without tracking. Although, I am now also playing with side-points, I want them to be more on the edges, like d300 from what I have seen. d600 has most distant points identical to 6d. I do not need that 3x additional points in between, so from this point of view cameras are on par.

Whilst I am a committed Canon fan boy I'm not pleased with the 6D spec and the reviews now confirm my worst fears, if I were in the market for a new FF camera I might well buy Nikon D600 - HOWEVER I've used one and I have to agree that grip/ body is way too small - can't please everyone I guess - the body form of the older D700 was simply brilliant - why on why didn't Nikon stick with that ? Answer - cost cutting and the desire to have the smallest/ lightest FF on the market - Nikon put marketing ahead of real users needs. With senior management at BOTH Canon & Nikon making simple mistakes how long before we have a new DSLR/camera device brand coming from China that blows them ALL away? Mad thinking - hell no.If I'd said this 20 years ago, that Japan was heading into the dustbin people would have laughed at me. Well, time as they say will tell.

Probably the one thing I did not say explicitly about 6d grip: it is perfect for me, the overall ergonomics is also much better that d600. If it has only slightly better handling than d600, I'll probably reconsider my decision. But with my hands, which are M-L male european hand size (I think smaller than average), it fits just perfectly with all buttons right there, where they should. I came from Pentax, which also has good ergo.

Sad Joe, Looks like now you’re bashing the Japanese. High-end precise imaging technology is one thing the Chinese or any other can't take away from the Japanese. Imaging technology is not limited to camera. Actually the Japanese imaging technology as helped globally in research. Look at the confocal scanner develop by the Japanese, which is able to scan and display real time live cell image in colour. This equipment has a frame rate of 2000fps. This was used to see and understand how AIDS virus infects a healthy cell in real time for the first time ever. We have to thank the Japanese for this.

Sad Joe, the D600 has its flaws too. Its body is mainly plastic, and definitely not in the same league as the D700 body in build quality. Nikon has more room to slot the D600 below the D800, and give it more features, because the D800 has an obscene number of pixels. Canon has less room to play with, since the 5DIII has just 2 more megapixels than the 6D. Ideally, the 5DIII and D800 should have been sold for $2K, so we don't need cameras like the D600 or 6D. The number 6 in both cameras is an interesting coincidence, because both cameras seem to be necessary evils in today's market. For $2K, we should expect better build quality in both of these full frame cameras and none of the artificial removal of features and capabilities.

The best review is from the real users. Yesterday I have looked for the Amazon.com. d600 has 4 star rating on average, and all 1 to 3 stars which is 70 reviews out of 223 (31%) complains about horrible dust and oil issues. As already noted here, it is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS that DPR does not take that into account, this must be a very-very serious concern!On the other hand, Canon 6d has only 6 out of 58 2-3 stars rating (none of 1) and average of 4.5. None of the users with 2-3 rating report any technical problems, just complaining about setting up wi-fi (RTFM!), of course comparing to d600, etc.

As one of comments (aftab) said, 5Dmk3 was regraded a failure initially compared to D800 but later succeeded with many awards and sells better than D800. Actually, the D800 price is dropping and dropped even further when D600 was released. Looks like Nikon are killing D800 with D600. But D600 has it’s own problems. Not sure, how many pros were badly affected financially due to D600 issues. The 5Dmk3 does hold value and it’s more expensive than D800, here in Australia.Looks like 6D will follow the same success as 5DMk3, I have researched many user reviews and the reviews are good. A lot of reviewer does start a 6D review with a sense of scepticism…Maybe, reviewers like Dpreview should have a follow up review e.g. 6 months etc. when there is significant field data available for every new pro level camera. Reliability info would be important for pros that are investing in this fine equipment’s for their livelihood.

Sad Joe, looks like you don’t want Canon gear anymore and may want to move to Nikon. Which is understandable. There are also lots of folks who have moved from Nikon to Canon. This is an individual matter and you have your cons about the Canon gear. The Wi-Fi and GPS is not new tech but it’s implemented first time in a FF DSLR, which I think will be followed by many. The next D600 would probably have it in built. Nikon has been packaging the external GPS and Wi-Fi with D600 in some countries. Why are they doing this – because they can see the treat from 6D but only in specific countries? I have a colleague who wants to buy a DSLR for the first time and guess what, 6D was in his list not D600. Look at the final package for a first time purchaser: D600 with cheap Nikon lens and 6D with L series lens with all the latest gizmo. How would a first timer see this? Canon vs. Nikon marketing?

A most interesting reply - my 1st SLR was a Pentax MX I moved to Nikon (still have a Nikon FM from 1979) and some Nikon kit. At one point I have a Nikon F3 T (wish I still had that one !!!) but several years ago moved across to Canon because of better ISO and better AF - my main reasons for sticking with Canon now are: 1: A lack of money - things are tight so no longer money to burn 2: 8 decent Canon lenses including some L glass. These factors however do not blind me to the fact that Nikon has OVERTAKEN Canon in ALL important factors/areas apart from DLSR video - which is of great interest too me. To have a brand new Canon FF DSLR with DUFF video is unforgivable. If /when I have serious money to burn on new kit I might well move back into Nikon - I know I am not alone. In fact the only people who are BLIND are Canon. I'm at inFocus (NEC Birmingham England) early March and intend to tell the Canon reps how I and many others feel directly!

Sad Joe, the 5DMk3 price is dropping and it has better AF and video handling. Moving to Nikon is going to be costly - there is cost in building a new system. Canon does offer better overall lens collection. We don't live in a perfect world and neither Nikon nor Canon are perfect

Pleased that you are pleased with the 6D, no doubt it can and will produce great images - if not so great video. My point is that this is the 4th FF semi pro spec camera from Canon (5d/5d2/5d3/6d) so we all expect more even at a lower price. For me the 6d FAILS on some simple basic, poor AF (becoming normal from Canon ? Recall the 7D had problems as does the EOS-M) poor to no AF tracking possible, slow bust, slow read write times, one card slot but worst of all poor video - my Canon VC 10 camera with seperate VHS recorder could record a wall of bricks without the bricks appearing to move around - so almost 30 years later why can't a brand new Canon DLSR do at least that well? I have a 40D and like many have found the replacement models lacking and thus have not moved forward despite wishing to do so. Canon will have to try a lot harder to win my money. Something like the Nikon D600 is the spec I want NOT the 6d with its wifi & GPS nonsense and poor video.

14-24mm f/2.8 is quite popular among Canon users and many got or are considering a D800 and inevitably some lenses like 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 VR2, with some f/1.8 primes to build a secondary system.

some secondary systems become main system and more will follow. this may be the reason of recent rumors that Canon will move on to make a new generation of advanced sensors.

btw, I think Canon's new 24-70/2.8L2 and 70-200/2.8LIS2 are better than Nikon ones but judging from the output of the current low resolution sensors (other than D800) Nikon lenses look same as good or even better to some eyes.

Hi Sad joe,I can understand your disappointment. 6D didn't meet your expectations. It fell behind. But remember that it met expectations of many, is selling very well, and those people are very happy with it. 6D does not have poor AF. On a scale of poor, average, good, very good and excellent, I would rate it as very good. It easily tracks larger subjects such a dog and it tracks birds reasonably well. I have tested it.GPS is a very useful feature to many, including myself. So is wifi. When video first came to DSLR many people said it was useless. Now you can't buy a DSLR without this feature.If you are not heavily invested in Canon, switch to Nikon. Don't be so sad, life is short. You can take great pictures with gears in your hand.

One should not underestimate the financial powers of Canon and Nikon. The tech wave is favoring Nikon for now. Canon will come back again after having realized that they have lost the vision for the time being.

Nevertheless, the present euphoria with affordable Full Frame to the public means: get out of it. It’s like when a taxi driver recommends stock investments. The future is not FF in its present state.

The coming years are in the mobile and initiatives pushing FF to medium format strengths like the d800 jumped on. Interesting times ahead.

Software and the sensors define the game, not the casings around. Mirror less like Panasonic and the new entry like the d800e are setting the upcoming wave.

Again I find myself agreeing with someone else's postings - the future does belong to very large sensor products and also very tiny but very high quality sensors, within 5 years there will be products (note products not just traditional camera bodies) that will make todays highest performers seem tame.

What do we do in the mean time? Still need to produce good images. I was in an event 4 months ago and we wanted to take a small group photo. One of the guys was trying to take a shot with his iPhone but couldn't get good shots because of the irregular/poor lights. I used my K5 with 35mm prime lens and was able to take the shot and produce decent image. And everyone used my image copy, not the iphone one. In fact, my IPhone colleague was criticising the bulk size of my camera as many are nowadays.

I am a happy owner of the 6D, and I'm sorry to note that you throw mud on him, especially when put in comparison with Nikon D600. The 6D and 'a machine specialist lightweight and compact, with essential and interesting features for those who make certain types of photography. The files that churns out are crisp, sharp, high color rendering, and a recovery of the shadows at 100 and 200 ISO truly remarkable. In high iso behaves traordinariamente, giving file with low noise even at iso 6400-10 thousand. Maybe it 's the best home sensor Canon. The central AF point and 'very fast and accurate, and allows you to fit even in low light conditions. The sides are rather more 'slow, but very accurate. If they were all on the cross would be ideal. The 6D and 'a great camera for those who do landscape photography, street, reportage and portraits. Sorry for my Bad EnglishHere my shots with 6D: http//500px.com/magps. Nikon D600 86%. But nobody talks about the sensor dirt and green file?

So not only has Canon ensured they 'gave' us the minimum spec apart from a few headliners they also included a duff video performance as well. I disliked this camera from the off and the debate got quite heated a while back when I suggested that the 6D would be regarded as a poor camera by history and a huge mistake made by Canon - so I have avoided adding any new comments until this full review. I now regard the 6D as a VERY poor camera and whist no camera is perfect the Nikon D600 would appear to be the camera of choice for those new or changing over and wishing to go FF without massive spend.Unless you HAVE to go FF for lowest cost and HAVE to stick with Canon the 6D IS ONE TO AVOID. The EOS- M and its rubbish AF system further confirm my views (as a long time Canon user) CANON YOU HAVE LOST THE PLOT and the 6D / EOS-M are two more nails in your coffin. Number one brand ? Not for much longer....

the differences are not that much, but you can see if you mind looking for, and if you know it, there is no reason to choose an inferior one if you can choose freely. Canon should have concluded that Canon lenses holders won't be able to switch to other mounts easily.

I'll get a 6D as a walk around camera when my current one passes away.

Interesting comment, do you use any particular camera model- Canon/Nikon. When you say overall Canon is no good or lost their plot would that include the 5dmk3 and the current 1D? The 5dmk3 is highly regarded.

Indeed they are - I have the great pleasure of using a Canon 1D X a couple of weeks ago and a 5D3 a few months ago, both superb and if I was still earning money shooting weddings I love either or both. My point is that Canon are relying on people being drawn into the 6D by 'toy town' features that as a semi pro/ ex pro I don't wish to spend money on. The rot set in when the Nikon D3 hit the market, then the D700 - both of which I have used - both superb. Since then Canon have been left standing and the 6D simply doesn't cut the mustard. The ONE area that Canon still has a lead over Nikon is DSLR video - the 5D3 has a brilliant video mode (we'll forget the much cheaper Panasonic GH system for a moment) so what did Canon feel it could GET AWAY with such POOR performance from the 6D market place? Sorry Canon your taking your customers for granted and over time you'll end up paying. Nikon did the same over AF and its taken them almost 30 years to begin to take top slot again.

Sad joeIt makes me sad to read your comments. Canon is not dying. Actually far from it. When 5D3 came out, many compared it with D800, and said it was the last last nail in Canon's coffin. Actually, people now consider it as the best all round DSLR ever made. It has outsold D800 in every country.Canon's AF is among the best in the industry. So is their lenses. Not just AF or lenses, everything they do is either the best or among the best except for sensor. Even then they can give everyone a run for their money with few year old sensor technology. In future if Canon can't come up with a sensor as good as others (very unlikely scenario), they can easily buy one if they need to.The fact is Canon has a better system than any other brand, more cameras for people's need than any other brand and more lenses to suit people's need than any other brand (its newer lenses are just unparalleled).Canon is not dying. No one to kill it in foreseeable future.

Nice analogy... actually why do we need consider the 20M sensor old? does megapixels determine old/new or old tech/new tech? the 6D sensor is actually a new development. there is whole lots going in a camera that just sensors.

In a nutshell, a camera that might have been great but put down on purpose, that has the ability to take some great pictures if you can overcame handling difficulties, which should not been there.Overall, that Canon smart samurai so full of himself (see pic of his interview) , should really be proud looking how a universe of Canon users continue to support his nice life of leaking on our heads. There will be people to buy that, as there were ones buying the 60D, which is a similar concept. Not me.

Tested it with the 24-105 and compared with the 40D which I use. Grip is too small and distance to lens as well small you do not get enough hold, unless you strain your hand - you get fast tired. I know this is subjective still my wife tried the camera as well and deemed the old 40D better to hold.

I was waiting for a replacement for my 40D for a long while. 50D had good prospects, IQ was a disappointment, no good reason to change to that. Then the 60D came and was such a let down, then 7D with the murky image quality, apart from being an excellent package. The 6D might have been the one for me but no, Canon decided to push the profit and try to cheat me off. Good reason to be so sour. I need better high ISO performance, better IQ than my old sensor, high framerate and would love to have an articulated screen and the best finder. And, as an amateur, cannot afford the >3K 5DMkiii.

I could not agree more ! My 40D is good but I want better - and all its replacements have suffered faults or poor performance in one area or another. Canon must try harder to earn my money and the 6d simply isn't anywhere good enough. How Nikon must have laughed when they saw the 6D spec for the 1st time....I'm not a happy Canon fanboy...at all.

I did now, just for reference - i wear size XL motorcycle gloves. Both cameras were excellent. I tried the 6D with the large 70-200 F2.8 lens in the shop and it handled well. You must have a pretty big fingers!

How about we just concede the 'one' accurate assessment you provided - it is subjective.I am on my 3rd 40D, and while it is a great camera and body it is 'less' ergonomic in feel than the 6D. If you had limited your criticism to the joystick I would have agreed 100%. Not that the pad does not work, but I like being able to have it just 1/2" from where my thumb rests.As for everything else, grip size, texture, distance from the lens mount, shutter button angle, thumb rest depth, etc the 6D is almost 'superior' to the 40D but easily 'better'.The one gripe I have not fully gotten past (and delays my upgrade to date) is not being able to use the AE-Lock and AF-Point buttons for zoom in/out like practically every other Canon in history.. it does have the ability to set a default zoom percentage for the One-Button-Zoom function though - so you can jump straight to your desired chimp-level.. heh

3) planned and well executed gelding: no mobile screen, less direct controls (especially taking out the stick controller), no flash remote control (unless you pay to add external), simplified auto focus, lowered framerate4) addition of useless gimmicks like GPS and Wi-Fi. I have read a couple idiotic comments that you can use your mobile phone as a screen. Unless blessed with additional hands, I wonder how they manage to direct the camera, zoom on subject and operate the rest of controls and focus and shot. Unless they take pics of their own ... legs. I think that most of these guys try to impress us letting us know they have smartphones and tablets. And, anyway, both GPS and Wi-Fi could have been added if and when needed. BTW, the option of not having these is priced by Canon at just 50 USD/EUR, which is a spit in the eye.

"both GPS and Wi-Fi could have been added if and when needed."... just because you don't find them useful, it doesn't mean that they aren't. I could have bought the 5DMIII but chose the 6D because these two features.... remember, the world does not spin around you.

The comments here veer a lot from essential: how 6D is in itself. Apart from the IQ that is definitely better than any APS-C of Canon, the overall experience (yes, I have briefly shot with 6D) is poor: 1) small body with poor holding ergonomic (I just wonder - and feel pity - about the tiny hands and weakened muscles of the ones who praise it's smallness and lightness).

2) plasticky and frail feeling of the plastic clad on mag-alloy frame body

This nagging perception that Canon sensors are in anyway inferior to their Sony / Nikon counterparts exists only in theory... and is primarily propagated by DXO...

Despite the extravagant ratings that DXO awards Sony sensors... the reality is that Sony camera's doen't even come close to touching Canons image quality... in both RAW & JPEG...

Isn't it miraculous with Toshiba's foray into sensor development... Nikon manages to catapult that maiden sensor to take the top spot amongst DXO's APS-C sensors... considering the fact that noise is eating away at detail beyond ISO 3200... talk about bias...

The 6D is an outstanding camera as far as pure IQ goes... The level of captured / retained detail in anything from 12800 and above is simply awe inspiring... Personally i'd rather have better noise control compared to better dynamic range... Nikon in true fashion try to give you the best of both worlds - a jack of all trades... Canon on the other hand is the master of noise control...

Technical specs don't mean much compared to actual photos. You certainly can't base a buying decision on them, the sample pics from the 6D here on DPR impress me greatly with their colour and subtlety. It's one of those rare times I think there is something special going on.

Whether we could pick out Canon from Nikon if they were shuffled randomly is another question. Most of the time you can't tell APS-C from FF but these are good.

It's important to bear in mind, that the images you see here on DPR and other places, whether out-of-camera JPEGs or JPEGs/TIFFs developed from RAW, are not directly comparable to DxOMarks results.

DxO analyzes the RAW files before demosaicing, i.e. before they get converted into viewable RGB images. They do this in order not to be dependent on anyone specific RAW converter software, and to come as close to the actual capability of the hardware as possible.Whether this capability is actually realized in the images you get from a specific RAW converter, is another matter entirely.

One more thing: you should always look at the graphs on DxOMark, not only the final scores. The scores for DR and color depth only tell you about the highest number, i.e. at base ISO. If, for example, a Nikon camera is better at base ISO, but Canon is better at higher ISOs, the Nikon will still get better DR/color depth scores.

The low-light score is more complex. It is the highest ISO at which SNR, DR and color depth are still above certain thresholds, i.e. 30 dB (SNR), 9 EV (DR) and 18 bits (color depth).If one of the three falls below the threshold at, say, ISO 800, then the low-light score will be 800, even if the other two are still above their thresholds.In other words, the DxO scores don't reveal the whole truth. Compare the graphs to get a more complete picture.

Finally, you mention "Toshiba's foray into sensor development", as if they were newcomers in the business. Toshiba has been an established sensor maker for years; this just happens to be their first APS-C sensor.

even if they have been in sensor business for some time but size matters and there is whole lot of complexities involve in respect with manufacturing and cost. that's one of the reason why, DSLR started with smaller sizes in the early days.

Toshiba isn't new in business, they are one of the leaders in small sensor (smartphones) market. In large sensor market they cooperated with Sony for quite a while, manufacturing some of the Sony sensors when Sony couldn't satisfy the demand. The new sensor from Toshiba also seems to be Sony technology for a few reasons. Besides, just take a look at DxO results, they are perfectly consistent with other Sony sensors. Same tech.

@PlastekAccording to Chipworks, the Toshiba sensor has a different pixel architecture than Sony's sensors, and use copper metallization instead of aluminium, something they had only seen Samsung use before in an APS-C sensor. So, not same tech at all. That the two sensors perform similarly doesn't mean they are the same.

Revenant, a lot people talk greatly about the DXO score and how excellent the nikon sensors has scored. but many complain about the Nikon colours... many spoke about 'green' photos etc. why didn't the DXO pick this? I want to trust the DXO result but users say something else. is the DXO results independently verified? how legitimate is the results?

DxO measure the color depth, basically how many color nuances the sensor can distinguish. They also report the accuracy of the three color channels, although that is not incorporated in the final DxOMark score.

If the images have an overall color cast, that is usually the result of the JPEG engine or RAW converter, something that happens at a later stage. Some manufacturers prefer cooler colors (eg. Panasonic), while others prefer warmer (eg. Canon, Olympus).As I wrote above, DxO makes their measurements of the RAW sensor data before conversion to an RGB image.

The green color cast of the Nikon images hasn't been universally reported, to my knowledge. And my understanding is that it was an issue with the LCD screen, not the images themselves.

Here is a quote from Ken Rockwell: he commented that the D600 colours often have a green/magenta shift problems. http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/6d.htm#rex

You seem to know this: in your opinion which one (newer Canon or Nikon cameras) has more accurate colour reproduced (off camera JPEG/RAW).Many say don’t worry about this as this can be corrected when shot in RAW. But some shoot in JPEG because they need to send the shots ASAP… no time to post process.

There are several parameters that have significance at the sensor level because they provide a base to understand what is happening in A/D processing (S/R ratio, DR (white to black, not color) color depth, and DxO measures at that level.There are other factors such as tonal gradation and ISO performance that have little relevance if tested at any other level than what can be achieved by the user. Therefore DxO measures all dynamics again so they have results for both 'sensor level' and 'print sample' across all parameters. Producing a scale between 'input' and 'output'.

The fault in ranking is they score from the 'print sample' not the 'sensor level', nor do they average across the ISO range.

In the end they score a camera on the best possible output of an arbitrary standard (~8mp image) regardless of how poorly the camera performs across the remainder of its ISO range or at an unprocessed sensor level.

As many comments said before I think comparing and rating this camera only by side by spec comparsion is not doing justice.6D wins on any recent DSLRS on the realism and color or Film like characteristics this camera brings to the digital world. Compare to D600 shots which is still digital on first glance and clinical on details and colors. Nothing compared to to this camera bringin the emotion and realism film like simulattion and finer details onto the digital front. This may be the advantage of Canon higher end DSLRS brining the warmth and tone of light onto the image depending on the time of the day and season. These qualities are simply overlooked by reviwers and peepers when they are busy comparing the spec sheet and technical details.

realism not, emotion some, that our emotion rises for something we cannot control well, the biggest difference between chemical and electronics.

about the differences between digital cameras, a new star is OM-D. some people think it saves their life by bringing instant cheap images to their taste. D600 is certainly not as good in this respect, though it may be better, can deliver cheaper looking image, than D800 my favorite camera.

Another confusing comments which includes OM-D, D600 and D800. Not sure what you're trying to say and it sounds very similar to Dpreview's review. I'm trying to read through this comments to get some understanding but it's the same. somebody who is Canon hater wants to throw in an emotional related comment. I'll like to see more of 6D users comments who has done some extensive real field test.

Well of course IQ is important but you also have to judge it against things like built in flash and autofocus because they form part of the experience and the D600 is ahead in a lot of ways.

Tech Radar realise this themselves and give it 4/5 accordingly!

Most interesting remark is that it has a slower frame rate than Canon cameras with the same processor for no technical reason, it's like it has been deliberately slowed down to keep the 5D3 looking attractive. This is out of order and shows a lack of respect to the consumer. Unless there is a techie reason I can't see?

the frame rate thing is pretty straight forward answer, it's spec'd in and Canon sales are very clear about it. So, do you think the built in flash in the D600 is very useful to a point that makes it a better camera than the 6D. Can it be used across all nikon lens ranges. this is key since, new D600 investors may not need to invest on a new nikon flash. The 6D does perform well in low light but the flash on the D600 could fill the gap. Please advice on your experience with D600 on this feature?

The primary advantage to the D600's built in flash is that it can command speed lights. This is extremely useful if you are on a budget. You can just buy one speed light and be good to go for off camera ttl flash instead of having to buy 2 speed lights, the special commander unit, or expensive ttl radio triggers like you do on the 6D.

SO the actual strength of the flash is for remote flash trigger. normally this is for studio use and usually this people use real purpose/specific remote controls. how effective is the D600 flash remote capability.you're right, 6D would require 580EX or 600EX for master control but it's ore sophisticated control technique compared to D600 built-in flash

Nikon user since 1972 since my first Nikkormat. WHAT A HORRIBLE AND BIAS review! SHAME ON DP - you have lost a reader and supporter. This site and many of its posters are extremely bias towards Nikon and that's OK. They make amazing gear.But to not be honest and post such a review is sad.I have been shooting my entire life (54). Never owned a Canon due to my investment in Nikon glass and gear.I am a published artist. 2 books, many weddings, sports for ESPN & UPI, portrait work for several notable people and print adds.I currently use a D3 & D800E for most of my work, and own a lot of glass.I also shoot with Medium format when needed (rarely).My daughter wanted a new camera for her 18th birthday and I knew she would love the full frame experience . Being connected to Calumet I was able to take home and play with a D600 and a 6D.The 6D was my first Canon DSLR experience .The 6D was the choice for my daughter hands down.Shame in DP - my first and last post!

What on earth are you talking about, why is it a biased review? The furore over this camera amazes me, anyone would think it was radical in some way or involved revolutionary technology or did something no Nikon ever could. It's bizarre!

There are reason for this comment. The DP review or reviewers need to be more educated when they rate a camera and that shouldnt be subjected to their ignorance considering how much of an impact thay are making again considering how many people watch this site for a direction. They have dowgraded to a team of lab testers rather doesnt have the photogrpahic tase. look for realisting review elsewhere.

It is biased because it not correct and DP rarely fairly reviews Canon DSLR's. It is worse when Nikon has a direct competitor.In this case D600 V 6D.I am a photographer (professional), not a gizmo, pixel counting person. I ran both the 6D and the D600 through 3 days of shooting. The only thing that matter is the quality of the pictures and the experience. Don't get me wrong the D600 is a fine camera.But DP is a very poor job - seemed bias with there review. Either they are not photographers or have a Nikon bias." it is not the hammer but the carpenter". In the hands of a skilled photographer the 6D is amazing and deserves a fair shake.Let me repeat - I am an invested Nikon user and fan.Honest is Honest. My last post or view of this site.

I feel they didn't talk much about the 'experience' of shooting in particular with AF to make any useful distinction between the two. Probably they felt providing their own subjective opinion of both in this regards comes down to personal biases and left it out. So we are left mostly on a review that IMO does just parrot things about the paper spec differentials like most other reviews. However you just said you spent 3 days with both, and offer people no insight on what DPR specifically failed to mention, so that really helps none of us correct?

What is the connection between ur daughter choice and dpreview bias?Are you saying that ur daughter is better than dpreview?So according to her 6D should score better than d600 in dpreview?And that's why dpreview is bias?Goodbye..

I don't think it makes someone biased or ignorant just because they make a different buying decision to you, there are plenty of things to weigh up and most reviewers mark down the 6D because of its obviously gelded spec for the money.

It doesn't make it a bad camera (as everyone says) but there are more things to take into account. The IQ speaks for itself though. Fabulous.

The judgement/statements in the review doesn't add up plus the test shots looks all right vs. the statements associated with it. I can' really make up Dpreview score and Silver award. It’s like they are saying the results are great but because it's poor spec we couldn't give it a gold award. I thought the whole idea of a good camera is how well it handles in the hands of the photographer and the results specific to the application. People should seek advice from experts based on the application e.g. people whom are good at portrait, landscape, events etc. I’m not a pro but I follow some and these guys can really relate with their gear. DPreview and other ones like this is good for first pass thought of the equipment but you’ll need to do more research by your own before you purchase this fine equipment’s. Canon, Nikon have been in this game more longer than any of this sites… they know what their doing - it’s market driven thing and you always can’t please everybody.

It is hard to imagine that canon still produces such hideous noise at low ISO levels in the shadow areas. This is a HUGE problem on the 5DmkIII and 1DX rendering them almost useless for landscape work as pulling detail out of shadows should not bring such high levels of noise. It wouldn't be that much of a problem if the canon sensors had decent dynamic range but they are a whole generation behind everybody else, specially Nikon which has been delivering over 2 stops beyond canon for a few years now. Because of this, one almost has to always pull detail out of shadows and thus the noise problem becoming even more severe. And why can't they just do what Nikon/sony do and deliver clean shadows at LOW ISO? I mean this is ISO100 for god's sake! why is there noise!

I agree on the fact that the limitation in Canon sensors in pulling the shadows is frustrating, but on the other side I find naive from many Nikon users bragging about the superiority about their sensor. They have a huge advantage, I do not question that, but that is not everything in sensor qualities. For instance Nikon sensors are very crude in the highlights by comparison and for them it is a necessity to pull the shadows in order of not clipping the highlights. Sorry Nikon fanboys, but Canons have much better highlight transition. Even my Pentax 645D is better than Nikon there and I am still so nervous in exposing on the right of my histogram when compared to my 5DIII or 1DsIII. Canon may lose big if grossly underexposed, but will much more easily keep details if overexposed.

After a brief inspection of the nice and detailed in-depth review I feel a nice, warm feeling inside. I am very satisfied that the EOS 6D is the camera it is, now I do not regret getting new APS-C designed lenses for my Canon EOS 60D, becouse moving to an affordable state of the art FF camera from Canon is simply not optional. Where to begin? Fixed LCD, horrible moiré patterns in video (no improvement in this area whatsoever since the 5D MkII or the 60D), flash sync and fastest shutter speed worse than on my 60D (I use 1/8000 more often thatn I thought I will), price...

Again, thank you Canon. I can grab my 60D tomorrow and enjoy shotting with it (and with the Sigma 8-16, 17-50 and 50-150), with no questions in the back of my head about what has improved since I got the 60D. Becouse the answer is realy - nothing important for me. I do not care about the number of AF points or framerate, around 5 fps is still enough for me.

Good on ya, the Sigma 8-16 is mint i use it myself too with the 50D. Also interested in the new Sigma 30mm and also been checking out the Canon 35mm f/2 IS, bit steep price though but nice size and good quality optics.

There is one perfect function, not present on 60D - it is silent mode. On 60D it is useless, on 6D it is perfect. Wi-Fi control is a nice feature too. I also own 60D and wouldn't switch on 6D, because screen is fixed and video is not better. Sigma 30/1.4 - old and new are perfect lenses.

Good on you you feel confident your 60D was the perfect purchase.Have fun makeing more pics of yr dog in the snow.Like a few hunderd replies here it adds nothing to the discussion about the 6D. A lot never used a FF camera at all.

First of all, I am quite amused by all the reviews comparing the 6D to the 5D mkIII and Nikon D600. First and foremost, who cares what those cameras can do. One is $1500 more money and the other isn't even the same brand. Unless you're in the market for either system it doesn't matter what Nikon does. I couldn't care less.

I have had the 6D for about a month now and I can say with confidence that this camera is well worth the $1500 savings over the 5D mkIII. The images are great and the camera is very responsive and zippy. The default shutter noise is so low it's almost silent and the camera feels great in the hands. With the BG-113 Battery Grip attached this camera has some serious bulk and weight, and it looks and feels well built and solid.

The images it produces are fantastic, and the high ISO images are pleasing and more like film grain than traditional noise.

Despite some setbacks as far as the AF system, this camera is a joy to shoot with.

For your case it's a don't care.As you mention, if one in the market for either system, that this type of comparison is very helpful. After all, if there is no benchmark, then there is no meaning to rate a camera. A compact can also be very good, isn't it?This camera is definitely good, offers what almost everyone's need. But, it's closest competition just offers a bit more (unless build-in GPS and wifi is a die-die must feature to you), at almost the same price (even cheaper in my place..). High ISO performance is no doubt goes to 6D (only if u px peep though). It's closest competition is just slight behind. I doubt anyone can differentiate it in real word.

Comparing the 6D to the D600 is relavent because many APS-C camera owners looking to go to 35mm sensor will have only APS-C lenses (like me) and so switching brands is a very real option since they (I) will need new lenses anyway. Personally I think that's a good thing that I need to start again otherwise I'd have been locked into the same brand with no options. As it happens I think the 6D is a better camera for me so I think I would stick with Canon.

Full frame 35 mm comes from the Mr. Barnack (ancient chief Leica engineer) size out of the 1920s when just plastic movie rolls of film forced him to 35 mm. Minds get obsessed with sizing. Like a religion.

The future is the software reading out sensors from mechatronics (the camera, no more film). The importance of size shrinks rapidly, like modern cars coming down from their physical bulk, less steel but more intelligence.

This Canon FF camera (me-too product) like the Nikon FFs or Sony FFs (translucent, my god) - to name them - are over their technological peaks, already. Industry just wants to get your hard earned consumer dollars – now, before common knowledge is in the markets priced in.

I agree. We got a difference – the artistic expressions over the tool.

With a bright mind you can make great pictures, even with an average camera. If you got a speed limit, the Ferrari will not beat the Volkswagen. Our speed limits are the computer monitors, and the printers for viewing.

Keep your photos in RAW. Future SW generations and screens will open up. Nobody cares whether this was Canon, Nikon – or else. They came from the sensors of the known suppliers.

Recently I've read a comparative test: the new Audi A6 vs the new BMW 5. One of these at the end of the review got the first place. Let's say it was the Audi (I can't remember). But does this mean that the BMW 5 is "worse"?!? So, if you want to compare the D600 with the 6D and claim that the 6D got "just" the silver... then please remember that it is a wonderful camera and the real world is only about personal taste at this quality level. Driving any of the A6 or 5 series will be a pleasure, taking photos with the D600 or the 6D will be the same. Cheers! :)

DPR scored RAW IQ extremely high for the 6D, but with even a quick glance at the RAW test scene, you can see that colors are not as rich as the other FF cameras. I think DPR missed this aspect in their scoring of the 6D's RAW IQ (but perhaps it's mentioned somewhere in the review).

DxOMark gave a lower color depth score to the 6D relative to other FF cameras so other testers have noted the way it renders color.

One of the reasons why the 5D3, D600 or D800 high ISO images look so excellent is they don't lose saturation. Clearly weak color/contrast can be fixed in post, but it's an extra step.

There's a fix for that - it's called processing. Shoot RAW and you can do whatever you want. Nobody cares about default color depth. And I'll bet that the human eye wouldn't be able to distinguish the differences enough to make it matter in the long run. And most people who buy the 6D, as with the 5D mkIII or the D600 post process their images anyway. The amount of photographers that only shoot Jpeg and never shoot RAW is most likely pretty low.

@Scorehound Maybe you missed that I was talking about RAW. I never shoot JPEG, and am not concerned with JPEG IQ. But as I mentioned color depth is important as added saturation in post is an extra step. And if your needing to add it to EVERY image you shoot, it's time consuming.

One of the great joys of shooting a camera with great colors like the X-Pro1 or D800 is that OOC files need less time in post.

A slight bump to saturation in LR takes a few seconds, and you can apply it to as many images as you like at the same time. Or you can define your own import settings and apply it automatically. It's not like you have to go one image at a time.

Also, I don't get at all your OOC concept since you say you never shoot JPEG. OOC usually refers to jpegs with no PP applied, not to RAW files. As far as I'm concerned, no RAW file looks good enough without a minimum amount of PP, irrespective of the camera.

The lower color depth of the 6D means that it can't distinguish between as many nuances, because of higher levels of chroma noise drowning out small differences in color. In other words, color gradations are less smooth. This can't be fixed by bumping saturation after the fact. Lost data is lost data.